March 21, 2013

How to Analyze a Philosophical Argument

Stephen Law and some atheists at my blog believe that merely offering an opinion on a summary of a philosophical argument (not considering the actual structural form or specific premises) is adequate as an "assessment" of a philosophical argument. I'd asked Professor Law to acknowledge that his assessment of The God Delusion was inadequate. But his response was basically to tell me to "sod off." And Law continues to stand by his assessment of the philosophical argument that he had presented in a video-taped lecture entitled, "The Strengths and Weaknesses of The God Delusion" at The University of Oxford, as noted here. William Lane Craig had provided a logical analysis of central argument of The God Delusion, as noted here. The comparison between Law and Craig is striking. Professionals in the field of philosophy offer that there are objective factors that should be considered in evaluating a philosophical argument, and this post touches on three key aspects.

I. Identifying the actual argument is important.

II. Valid forms and true premises are important.

III. Logical consequence is important.

In a critical assessment, specific premises in an argument are supposed to be evaluated and the overall structure is supposed to be evaluated as well. The following are some examples of critical considerations offered by philosophical websites that promote high standards in philosophy.
I. Identifying the actual argument is important.

According to the University of Northern Colorado, the first step is to identify the argument. "To evaluate arguments, one first has
to be able to identify them. There’s no mechanical procedure for doing
this, but the presence of such expressions as “since,” “for,” and
“because” (which often serve to mark premises) and “therefore,”
“consequently,” “hence,”

In his video-taped assessment of The God Delusion, Stephen Law never actually identified the central six-point argument, as defined by Richard Dawkins. Law did offer an evaluation touching on the first three points Dawkins had mentioned, but Law did not identify the specific six premises. Dawkins had clearly written,

"This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at
the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six
numbered points."

This institute offers two essential criteria for assessing a robust and logical argument:

1. transparent validity

2. quality of premises

While many philosophers are satisfied with merely "valid" forms of structure in a philosophical argument, The Institute for Philosophical Research offers that there is an even higher standard, a "transparently valid" argument. See their website for an in-dept description of what transparent validity entails.

If Law considered the argument to be an inductive one, he did not use the language appropriate for its assessment. A University of North Carolina webpage describes this basic language: "As such, we do not speak of validity/invalidity or soundness/unsoundness
when it comes to inductive arguments. Instead, inductive arguments are either
strong/weak or cogent/uncogent." Atheists at my blog have offered that the last three points of Dawkins' argument are irrelevant, therefore, they do not need to be included in Law's assessment. This would imply that Dawkins' central argument is extremely weak, whether deductive or inductive.

"A good argument is one whose conclusions follow from its premises;
its conclusions are consequences of its premises. But in what
sense do conclusions follow from premises? What is it for a
conclusion to be a consequence of premises? Those questions,
in many respects, are at the heart of logic (as a philosophical
discipline)."Though logical consequence is important, the actual number of premises is not considered critical:"There has also been dissent, even in Aristotle's day, as to
the “shape” of logical consequence. In particular, there is
no settled consensus on the number of premises or conclusions
appropriate to “tie together” the consequence relation."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logical-consequence/ Dawkins had offered six premises in his central argument in The God Delusion, however, Stephen Law did not address any of them specifically as they were actually written. Nor did he ask if there was any sense of logical consequence in the argument leading towards the conclusion.A logical anaylsis of Law's assessment

Even if I had not made a screen copy of the comment to save for posterity, the argument would remain true and valid because, as far as I can surmise, the form of the argument is valid and the premises are true:

A Logical Proof that Stephen Law Failed to Adequately Evaluate The God Delusion

1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.

2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on
comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the
conclusion.

3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion in The God Delusion.

4. In his evaluation, Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' six specific
premises and does not ask whether there is any logical consequence
between the six premises and the conclusion.

5. Therefore, Stephen Law had failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.

If you disagree with any of these premises or the structure of the argument, post a comment and offer your opinion. I welcome comments from anyone, so long as the person making the comments does
not have a history at my blog of slanderous lies or other forms of abusive
attacks.

In general, Stephen Law demonstrates a disregard for the basic principles of sound argument analysis. When asked several times for a summary of his favorite EGC argmunet, Law replied, "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't."(April 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM). The experts listed above would probably agree that the specific wording and syntax of an argument is important and such a reply by a philosophy professor inculcates the wrong message.

And though Law has felt at liberty to completely rewrite the already-summarized argument of The God Delusion, when it comes to his own long-winded argument, Law is opposed to any kind of summarizing: "Like many philosophical arguments, the EGC argument/challenge is fairly
complex. Setting it out formally would require pages and pages.
Condensing it to a few short bullet-point premises and conclusion
inevitably produces a straw man." (October 1, 2012 at 8:12 AM)

Conclusion

Most philosophers would outwardly agree that logic is important. However, it is truly surprising how many avoid the principles of logic in their actual arguments and analysis. I am not proposing that logic is a simple subject, or that a specific philosophy of logic is necessarily required in order to evaluate a philosophical argument. I am simply offering that logic is a key factor in evaluating a philosophical argument. As far as the experts quoted in the above three points are concerned, these are not optional considerations, but necessary ones. If you believe that these three aspects of philosophical reviews are optional considerations, then post a comment at the blog and explain why you believe this. If the above three points are valid, then Law's assessment of The God Delusion was an example of how not to assess an argument.

When a secular philosopher professor such as Stephen Law adamantly stands by his position that a philosophical assessment of an argument void of any questions of logic is a valid assessment, then this points to a deep underlying problem. Perhaps Law is unaware of such academic requirements. Or perhaps Law, as an atheist, was intentionally disingenuous in his assessment in an attempt to make The God Delusion appear better than it is. Or, another possibility. Law is knowledgeable of these academic standards but is in a state of mental denial when it comes to their practical use with regard to his own deep beliefs. Law's attitude could be a sign that there is another factor at play that would be in keeping with the concept of spiritual blindness.

Addenda

So far, in defending Law's critical skills regarding his assessment of the central argument of The God Delusion, we have the following list of excuses, which is still growing day by day:

1. Law was not obligated to list and address Dawkins' six-point argument because fitting six summarized points onto one slide screen would be inconvenient (therefore the latter three points may be completely ignored).

Have I missed any? Anyone care to add any new ones? I wouldn't want to be accused of gossiping behind someone's back, so I've posted a comment at Professor Law's blog and offered him a fair opportunity to defend his assessment and comment, that is, if he is interested.

When I posted these three excuses at Law's blog and gave him a fair opportunity to comment, he offered no correction. He simply posted a new blog post and moved on. The time-worn saying often holds true: silence equals consent. Apparently, Law has no better excuses to offer than these. But are these valid excuses? Hardly. If it could be conceived that two slides would be used in order to summarize six points, then one excuse falls apart. And if it may be demonstrated that there is little hope that materialism will answer the question of the fine tuned universe, what is so obvious about Dawkins' remaining points? Nothing. The organizing principle of the universe is better explained by the logic of theism.

I suppose it is more safe for Stephen Law and his fans to ignore such questions and pretend that they do not need to be addressed. More pretension and denial. The Bible outlines the attitude of such, "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

(updated 03/26/13)

Tags: How to evaluate a philosophical argument, basics of philosophical evaluation, basics of logical analysis, object lessons in spiritual blindness, Stephen Law's assessment of The God Delusion at The University of Oxford

42 comments:

If you take into account that you do not understand Dawkins argument in the first place and use a straw man version from Craig, you fail at the very first step of identifying the actual argument in the first place

Anonymous is ahead of Stephen Law in that Anonymous has at least acknowledged that a central six-point argument exists in The God Delusion:

"The existence of gravity is self-evident just like it is self-evident that Dawkins has presented his central argument in six steps that allow to draw the conclusion that a deity as a creator is highly unlikely to exist."

Anonymous apparently has a problem understanding why it is a major problem that Law never once referred to Dawkins' six-point argument (or the relationship of the six points) in Law's 1.5 hour long analysis of the argument.

For people who agree with the three basic points of the above post, this major problem is fairly self evident.

I guess I will have to repeat the same point from before. Since when did the words of Dawkins become dogma? Why only his summary is acceptable and no one else s? Why do you think it is impossible to express the same idea with other words? Why do you accept the straw man version from Craig. but reject the one from Law?

Though, since I know that Rick is a liar, an idiot and generally a dishonest person, I doubt that he will even address the questions above.

One of the main problems (certainly not the only one) is that these six separate propositions do not logically work together in such a manner.

It is worth noting that Craig's paraphrase is a significant abridgement; he claims it is "verbatim" yet he regularly leaves out more than half the text of each point.

Now; we also note that this is a summary:

12One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artefact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.158 THE GOD DFLUS)ON3 The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.4 The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that - an illusion.5 We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.6 We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer.(continued)

There is a clear argument here. It is not a *proof*, but it is an argument; a distinction you would do well to follow.

I will rephrase, and you can point out where you think the rephrasing is not true to Dawkins' text.

1: The problem is to explain the appearance of design, AD.2: The usual solution, X, is to attribute the appearance to an intelligent designer. (AD implies X)3: However, solution X is not a solution, becuse of the infinite regress. Positing an X does not explain the appearance of design of X (step 1) (X requires X')4: Darwinian evolution provides an explanation of AD in biology -- (AD(b) implies DE)5: We do not have an equivalent to DE for physics (PE).6: However, since premise 4 is true, and premise 3 presents a contradiction, PE is more likely than X.

(Part of the problem you may be having is that the argument is compound, and parts of it *aren't* premises; #1, for example, is a statement of the problem, rather than a premise.)

Now, you can argue with #3, as Craig does, but that's arguing with the correctness of a premise, not the logical work of a semi-formal argument. (Since we are dealing in probabilities, it's hard to make it a formal one.)

1) AD exists: therefore some explanation is needed for AD.2) Proposal: X explains AD3) However, X also possesses AD, therefore AD explains AD? <== circular.4) For AD(biology), DE explains AD.5) There is no similarly certain for AD(physics)6) However, since AD(biology) is explained, and X internally contradicts, X is a far less likely explanation for AD(physics) than any of the set of ~X explanations.7) Therefore, there is no reason to believe X.

Point to the *logical* flaw there, please. Not the "I don't accept premise #N), but the flaw in logical form.

Be warned, Rick. I will not engage you until you answer all my questions.

R:Dawkins' central argument consists of six separate ideas that, according to Richard Dawkins, supposedly work together towards a single conclusion.

That is not an answer to my question. So what if Dawkins summary has been presented in a format of six steps? Why a different summary with a different format is impossible to express the same idea?

R:One of the main problems (certainly not the only one) is that these six separate propositions do not logically work together in such a manner.

You need to prove it and not assert it. Imnotandrei and I provided you with different versions of Dawkins summary, yet you failed to point out what is exactly the flaw in them or why they are a distortion of Dawkins position.

And also let me quote yourself on March 13, 2013 at 4:37 AM from the thread "How Logic Helps to Reveal Spiritual Blindness":

"If you want to apply God in a more general sense in his [Dawkins] philosophical argument, then that might be a possibility [of logical cohesion] for the sake of discussion. But Dawkins' definition of God in no way matches my personal understanding of God which offers a more logically cohesive understanding of reality."

>So what if Dawkins summary has been presented in a format of six steps? Why a different summary with a different format is impossible to express the same idea?

Creating a different summary using a different format can, of course, offer the same conclusion, but it is a different argument.

Law claimed to have assessed Dawkins' argument, not his own. Law had made a false claim. He never assessed Dawkins' argument throughout the course of a 1.5 hour long lecture.

You are apparently challenging premise 2 of my argument in the above post:

"2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion."

You apparently believe that the logical consequence of an argument can be evaluated by re-creating whatever argument summary a person wants to with however many premises a person wants to include.

While it is true that Stephen Law has a difficult time summarizing his own arguments, such as his EGC argument, Dawkins had already made a summary of his own argument. And that's what he called it. There was no need at all to rewrite Dawkins' own concise summary.

In the case of Law, however, we find he claims that he cannot summarize his own long-winded arguments (EGC) because this will supposedly drastically change the meaning.

Be warned, Anonymous. I will not engage you until you answer all my questions.

1. Would it have been possible for Stephen Law to have evaluated the logical consequence of Dawkins' summarized six-point argument during the course of Law's 1.5 hour long lecture without rewriting Dawkins' argument?

R:Would it have been possible for Stephen Law to have evaluated the logical consequence of Dawkins' summarized six-point argument during the course of Law's 1.5 hour long lecture without rewriting Dawkins' argument?

It would have been possible. It would have been inconvinient since the original is a little too long for a powerpoint presentation, but it is possible.

R:Did Law do that?

No, so what? Law addressed the idea behind the argument, that is what matters.

>Sigh... So you claim that the SAME argument cannot be presented in a different format and in different words.

- I had already clarified what I wrote:

"You apparently believe that the logical consequence of an argument can be evaluated by re-creating whatever argument summary a person wants to with however many premises a person wants to include."

If a prose-version is to be an acceptable substitute, then it needs to contain and represent the same premises in the same logical syntax. I am not claiming that different forms of the same argument are impossible, but if the amount of premises has been changed and the syntax is altered into a different form, then it is a different argument.

Do you really believe that someone is offering the same logical argument even if the amount of premises is vastly different and the syntax is altered?

>It would have been possible. It would have been inconvinient since the original is a little too long for a powerpoint presentation, but it is possible.

- So Dawkin's six-point summary is supposedly "a little too long" for a powerpoint presentation and that is an excuse for Law not too include it. That's about the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard considering the brevity of the argument:

Dawkins' key points verbatim:

"1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.

3. The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent crane for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

If the argument of this chapter is accepted... the God hypothesis is untenable. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."

R:but if the amount of premises has been changed and the syntax is altered into a different form, then it is a different argument.

I changed the amount of premises and altered the syntax into a different form in my example with Socrates and human beings being mortal. Is it a different argument?

R:Do you really believe that someone is offering the same logical argument even if the amount of premises is vastly different and the syntax is altered?

If the idea and the reasoning is the same behind it, yes I do. Premises can be grouped together or one premise can be divided into several. And the syntax can also be altered without distorting the idea and reasoning behind an argument.

Creating a different summary using a different format can, of course, offer the same conclusion, but it is a different argument.

So, Craig's abridged summary, which removes one of Dawkins' key metaphors, is a different argument than Dawkins', and we cannot treat Craig's response as a refutation.

Since, as you said:R:There was no need at all to rewrite Dawkins' own concise summary.

Which is what Craig did -- his "nearly verbatim" version is significantly shorter than Dawkins' original, and removes several important elements.

Thank you.

I am not claiming that different forms of the same argument are impossible, but if the amount of premises has been changed and the syntax is altered into a different form, then it is a different argument.

Any translation of syntax from one level to another is going to change its "form" -- so asking for a formal logical structure from an informal logical argument is a type error; it's like saying "I had four apples, then two were taken away; now I have two." is a different argument than "4-2=2".

And, again, if that's what you're after, Craig didn't offer a valid critique of the same argument, rather undercutting the point that started this whole discussion.

I will use your points, Imnotandrei, but I am afrad no amount of logic will help Rick understand what logic is about. 8)

R:So Dawkin's six-point summary is supposedly "a little too long" for a powerpoint presentation and that is an excuse for Law not too include it. That's about the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard considering the brevity of the argument

Let us learn how to count, Rick...

Dawkins original summary with the conclusion: 18 phrases...

Laws version: 2-3 phrases...

Now, how many slides are you going to need to fit 18 phrases that everyone in the audience can see clearly, Rick?

R:Dawkins' key points verbatim...What if I were to fit them onto a typical power point screen

You are not offering the original version from Dawkins. You are offering a straw man summary from Craig from the original summary. And then you accuse Law of offering a summary of the Dawkins summary argument... Thank you again for highlighting your hypocrisy.

R:You DID use the same amount of basic premises in both cases, just reworded.

Sigh...Ok, here you have the same idea without two premises.

Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal.

Premises are sometimes left unstated in which case they are called missing premises

It is evident that a tacitly understood claim is that Socrates is a man. The fully expressed reasoning is thus:

Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal.

R:So, in this respect your example fails. Law did not incorporate all of Dawkins' six premises into his muddled example

Sigh...For the hundred time, he focuses on the controversial point. No one has a problem with the statement that evolution explains design. Only loonies like you, Rick, deny that point.

R:The syntax of your personal example is not satisfactory for a logical argument structure as the conclusion is at the beginning.

That is only true for mathematical logic. I presented the same argument in an informal logical format. I will enlighten you, Rick. There is more to logic than formal logic.

R:There is no hint in his writing that he considered it to be an invalid form

Yes and you need to prove its form is invalid, which to this day you fail to do.

R:Well, as I've already tried to explain, there are six ideas haphazardly linked together, not just one idea. And the reasoning, the attempt at logical inference or deduction, is different as well

And what you fail to understand repeatedely, what is important is the central idea, not minor points whether we perceive design or not.

R:Or they can supposedly be completely ignored as well, right?

If they are obvious, yes.

R:In which specific sentences are these three points "summarized" in Law's argument review?

Again...Lesson from logic 101 - you do not need to consider every single premise to evaluate an argument. The three premises from Dawkins argument are obvious. Not to mention you continue to use a straw man version from Dawkins, which was pointed out to you numerous times. Thank you for proving again you are a liar.

>you do not need to consider every single premise to evaluate an argument. The three premises from Dawkins argument are obvious.

- False statement on many accounts.

1. An argument that includes multiple irrelevant premises would not be on par with an argument that includes only necessary premesis offering logical consequence towards a logical conclusion.

We don't know Law's opinion on this because professor Law failed to even address the question of logical consequence.

2. The last three premises are not "obvious" truths at all. There is no reason whatsoever to believe, for example, that the organizing principle of the universe will ever be explained with secular atheist reasons.

Both empirical observation and logic offer that the best explanation for the appearance of design in the cosmos is God's wisdom, not an illogical secular humanist's wishful presumption:

A)1.All humans are mortal.2.Socrates is a human.3.Therefore Socrates is mortal

B)Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal.

DO you deny this is the same argument even if the amount of premises do not match?

R:An argument that includes multiple irrelevant premises would not be on par with an argument that includes only necessary premesis offering logical consequence towards a logical conclusion

"Socrates is mortal, since all men are mortal."

I guess you consider the missing premise in this argument that "Socrates is a man" irrelevant and the whole argument a failure. Good job, Rick. Keep digging.

R:The last three premises are not "obvious" truths at all

Thank you for underscoring my point about loonies not believing in obvious facts like evolution.

R:There is no reason whatsoever to believe, for example, that the organizing principle of the universe will ever be explained with secular atheist reasons.

Hm... Let s see... We have been able to explain things like rain or earthquakes with science, when we used to attribute it to supernatural causes... But now, for some reason, even if we have been steadily explaining the organizing principles of the universe like gravity, we have supposedely reached an impasse and will not be able to move forward... Yep, good job, Rick.

R:Both empirical observation and logic offer that the best explanation for the appearance of design in the cosmos is God's wisdom, not an illogical secular humanist's wishful presumption

And thank you for reposting an old discredited article of yours. Let me remind you what is wrong with it:

1) Under your definition everything is designed and there is no difference between a rock and a boeing 747

2) Since everything is designed, the concept becomes useless and impossible. We are able to percieve design only with the comparison to smth undesigned. But in your world there is nothing to compare smth designed.

3) You completely reject the concept of originality. Nothing is original in your view, since everything is based on smth that existed before. The only thing original is the first cause. However, you initially deducted that new planets are not original compared to a new piece of music. Since nothing is original, besides the first cause, your argument was flawed from the beginning.

R:What part about the word "all" do you not understand?

1) The three premises presented in Dawkins summary are self-evident. Self-evident premises are sometimes left unstated.

2) And to quote Imnotandrei:

"Law is discussing specifically point #3. If you get to his conclusion, he finds it's not strong enough (at least according to his slides ;) ) to support the conclusion.So he doesn't have to address #4-6."

So far in defending Law's critical skills regarding The God Delusion, we have the following list of excuses, which is still growing day by day:

1. Law was not obligated to list and address Dawkins' six-point argument because fitting six summarized points onto one slide screen would be inconvenient (therefore the latter three points may be completely ignored).

I wouldn't want to be accused of gossiping behind someone's back, so I've posted a comment at Professor Law's blog and offered him a fair opportunity to defend his assessment and comment, that is, if he is interested.

If you disagree with any of these premises or the structure of the argument, post a comment and offer your opinion. I welcome comments from anyone, so long as the comments are not slanderous lies or other forms of abusive attacks.

You do not welcome comments from anyone so long as the comments... you have decided that some people are persona non grata, and you do not respond to them except under rare and unusual circumstances. Indeed, in this very post you post reasoning that has been challenged before, as if it had not been, because you do not accept "any comment".

Correction: "I welcome comments from anyone, so long as the person making the comments does not have a history at my blog of slanderous lies or other forms of abusive attacks." (that would include Imnotandrei, as documented: http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/slander-logic-and-venn-diagrams.html )

You need to correct your statement for the third time. You only managed to pinpoint ONCE when imnotandrei made a mistake a called one of your articles, that was ignored before as discredited. So imnotandrei does not have a history of slanderous lies or other forms of abusive attacks, but you still ignore him.

And let us not forget when it did turn he was mistaken, Imnotandrei did acknowledged it and moved on to discredit the article himself.

>You only managed to pinpoint ONCE when imnotandrei made a mistake a called one of your articles, that was ignored before as discredited.

- Nope:

And then there's Imnotandrei's second case of spontaneous slander. Amazingly, after finally admitting that he made a false statement at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar. In a previous comment I had stated,

"You, AnonyRus, call me a liar and you have no example to back up your claim. Show a clear example of a quote and a link where Stephen Law uses a valid logical form and structure in one of his arguments. Show where he at least summarizes his arguments in a logical sequence of premises."(September 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM)

Law's favorite argument, The EGC, does not show any demonstrable use of logical consequence. It is an extremely long-winded argument and Law refuses to offer any kind of premises in conjunction with it. In defense of his calling me a "liar" Imnotandrei offered a link to a critique made by Law. Mentioning logical concepts in a critique of another philosopher's argument is not the same as demonstrating the use of logical principles in your own argument, hence, Imnotandre's knee jerk claim that I am a liar is unjustified and slanderous.

That entire discussion had stemmed from another discussion in which I pointed out that top atheist apologists generally avoid logic like the plague.

Imnotrandei and others are irate that I would make such a claim. However, the article points out the documented facts. Stephen Law is not even considered a top atheist apologist according to reviews by secular humanist websites. So he would be excluded from the group in question in the first place. Additionally, Law's blog comments consistently show an underlying disregard for logical principles. In a post of his, Stephen Law had claimed that he was "more impressed" by Dawkins' chapter in the God Delusion outlining his central argument after Law had read it for the second time. Later, however, when repeatedly asked to comment on the logic of the chapter, Law stated...

I pray that Rick Warden does come to understand that humility and admitting errors offer a better path than pride and denial.

Imnotrandei and others are irate that I would make such a claim.

That's because you're claiming that I am slandering you because you don't accept that Law is using logical principles. This is because your definition of "logical principles" is ridiculously narrow. And to use this as your claim for my "repeated slander" demonstrates the weakness of your position.

I've given up on trying to convince you when your logic is flawed; that's pretty obviously impossible. I'll settle for getting you to stop applying massive double standards.

Oh: and by the way:

Stephen Law is not even considered a top atheist apologist according to reviews by secular humanist websites. So he would be excluded from the group in question in the first place.

I find it amusing that when it suits you, he's "considered a veritable high priest of secular atheism", and at another time, he's not a top atheist apologist.

So, which is he, Rick? Can you pick one, or are you going to continue using whichever one is convenient for your argument?

I don't believe giving a person a chance to correct misunderstandings about his views is a mistake. I offered Stephen Law an opportunity to offer any correction warranted to the excuses applied to his reasoning as to why he completely ignored three points of Dawkins' central argument in his review.

When I posted these three excuses at Law's blog and gave him a fair opportunity to comment, Law offered no correction. He simply posted a new blog post st and moved on. The time-worn saying often holds true: silence equals consent. Apparently, Law has no better excuses to offer than these. But are these valid excuses? Hardly. If it could be conceived that two slides would be used in order to summarize six points, then one excuse falls apart. And if it may be demonstrated that there is little hope that materialism will answer the question of the fine tuned universe, what is so obvious about Dawkins' remaining points? Nothing. The organizing principle of the universe is better explained by the logic of theism.

I suppose it is more safe for Stephen Law and his fans to ignore such questions and pretend that they do not need to be addressed. More pretension and denial. The Bible outlines the attitude of such, "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Romans 1.18)

It is true that Law does not register as a "top atheist" at general secular blogs. But I should clarify that "in the eyes of some" Law is treated as though he is a high priest of atheistic secular humanism by virtue of the fact that his followers, such as Imnotandrei, offer blind devotion to ideals void of logical critical thinking.

It is quite ironic that a person who is zealously and blindly devoted to people who avoid demonstrable logical principles in their own arguments and their analysis want to pontificate on the best use of iogic. Ironic indeed.

He simply posted a new blog post st and moved on. The time-worn saying often holds true: silence equals consent.

First: You seem to be arguing here, in essence, that whoever has the patience to post until they get the last word wins. I hope you realize how nonsensical that is.

In addition, Rick, I really don't think you want to be making that claim, considering the number of threads you've abandoned by "posting a new blog post and moving on".

Indeed, at the very post you link to, you didn't answer points such as:Because you are talking about two (potentially) different mechanisms of creation. Deliberate intelligence can create something new in an eyeblink, since you have counted "ideas" as something new. Even a "new A" might not take very long.

If you don't have intelligence behind it, it can take a little while longer, to put it mildly. Things don't have to operate in a different manner today for the "I didn't see it, therefore it didn't happen" to be invalid. -- you simply made another post and moved on.

More pretension and denial. The Bible outlines the attitude of such, "who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Romans 1.18)

I believe the proper response here is "pot. Kettle. Black."

But I should clarify that "in the eyes of some" Law is treated as though he is a high priest of atheistic secular humanism by virtue of the fact that his followers, such as Imnotandrei, offer blind devotion to ideals void of logical critical thinking.

I'm not a follower of Law's; I listen to him, and agree with some of his arguments, and am less certain of others.

Indeed, the whole model of secular humanist thought (since, once again, you're presuming I'm an atheist) that you have here is a flawed one, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

It is quite ironic that a person who is zealously and blindly devoted to people who avoid demonstrable logical principles in their own arguments and their analysis want to pontificate on the best use of iogic. Ironic indeed.

Considering that you're the one who most often pontificates on the "best use" of logic, rather than realizing that logic is a tool with many forms, many uses, and many varieties, I do find this statement coming from you ironic indeed, yes.

>You seem to be arguing here, in essence, that whoever has the patience to post until they get the last word wins.

- Not at all. In one of my first engagements with Stephen Law I asked several times simply for his opinion on the logic of Richard Dawkins' argument in The God Delusion. He did not give an answer in October 2012 and to this dsy has not offered a single answer. on that subject. So, it's not a matter of "getting in the last word" it's a matter of offering "one word" on the subject.

This has been documented:

Question 2: - OK, Stephen, let me try again. You do not seem to like to volunteer information so I'll try multiple choice:

1. Do you agree with Craig that Dawkins' summary argument (located in the chapter that you find so "impressive") does not offer sound logical consequence?

2. Do you find the chapter impressive regardless of a logically flawed argument?

3. Do you find Dawkins' summary argument to be acceptable logically, however, this is only part of what you consider to be "impressive" in this chapter of the God Delusion and you don't want the argument itself to receive an undue portion of the praise?

If there is a third option I may have missed, you are of course welcome to volunteer some information on the subject.

Answer 2: Rick you are aware I did a whole hour long videod lecture on Dawkins' argument, filmed at Oxford University

As I pointed out in a latter post, Law does NOT answer my questions about logic AT ALL in his video lecture. Quite the opposite, he avoids half of Dawkins' argument and does not discuss the logic of the argument at all.

>I'm not a follower of Law's

- You seem to be keenly interested in making Law appear more proficient and professional than he actually is. I doubt that Law would allow his own students to offer the types of excuses you have offered in defense of his academic flaws.

As I pointed out in a latter post, Law does NOT answer my questions about logic AT ALL in his video lecture. Quite the opposite, he avoids half of Dawkins' argument and does not discuss the logic of the argument at all.

Rick, he answered you. You *quote* him answering you.

You don't feel the answer was responsive? Well, that's often how people who argue with you feel. And now you are hectoring him for an answer you like, going to unrelated threads and declaring victory when he doesn't respond to you.

You wouldn't like that if it were done to you on this blog -- indeed, we have evidence (which, if you really need it, I can go dig out) of you chiding people on posting on inappropriate threads. We have evidence (cited above) of you moving on to a new post.

All I'm asking is that you be consistent one way or the other -- either you've left a lot of stuff here unrebutted and unchallenged, in which case, by "Silence equals consent" you accept it, or you accept that Stephen Law has the same rights you do when it comes to blogging.

You seem to be keenly interested in making Law appear more proficient and professional than he actually is.

I am interested in defending Law from your slanders -- and, indeed, accusing someone of professional incompetence without solid evidence is far more slanderous than anything I have *ever* done to you.

Ironically enough, while I'd vaguely heard of Law before starting to debate with you, it wasn't until you started attacking him that I went to see what all the ire was about. So thank you for introducing me to his work, which I much enjoy.

- I quoted Law making a false statement in which Law claimed that he addressed my question in his video assessment. That did NOT answer my question.

Can you comprehend the difference between offering a bogus response and actually answering a person's question?

If Law answered my question, then post a link to where Law offers his opinion on whether or not the central argument of The God Delusion is logical.

>So thank you for introducing me to his work, which I much enjoy.

- I can understand why you would enjoy such a person. You both have a lot in common. You both seem hell-bent on the denial of objective facts in favor of pretenses and whatever seems to promote your beliefs.

Again, I'll ask, if Law actually answered my question then where is the substance? Where is link to a comment or any video lecture that offers Law's opinion on the logic of the central argument of The God Delusion. There is truly a lot of delusion today, and it's quite clear who is promoting the delusion for anyone who has a desire for objective thinking.

It's quite interesting that you do not consider your unsubstantiated lies and slander about me inappropriate, but asking a professional philosopher simple and polite questions about logic is considered "attacking" him.

>I'd vaguely heard of Law before starting to debate with you

- That must be the reason you were so confident that Law demonstrably used logic in his own arguments, right? Yeah, right.

Recap of a true personal attack by Imnotandrei:

And then there's Imnotandrei's second case of spontaneous slander. Amazingly, after finally admitting that he made a false statement at 7.44 AM, by 10.26 AM he was back at it, calling me a liar. Imnotanrei wrote "Hence, Rick, you're a liar." - because he found a post where Law had used a little bit of logic in analyzing another philosopher's work. But I did not state that Law never uses logic. I stated that Law does not use demonstrable logic in his own arguments:

"You, AnonyRus, call me a liar and you have no example to back up your claim. Show a clear example of a quote and a link where Stephen Law uses a valid logical form and structure in one of his arguments. Show where he at least summarizes his arguments in a logical sequence of premises."(September 10, 2012 at 10:06 AM)

Therefore, Imnotandrei's claim that I am a "liar" is clearly false when taken in context.

As I pointed out in a latter post, Law does NOT answer my questions about logic AT ALL in his video lecture. Quite the opposite, he avoids half of Dawkins' argument and does not discuss the logic of the argument at all.

Rick, he answered you. You *quote* him answering you.

You don't feel the answer was responsive? Well, that's often how people who argue with you feel. And now you are hectoring him for an answer you like, going to unrelated threads and declaring victory when he doesn't respond to you.

You wouldn't like that if it were done to you on this blog -- indeed, we have evidence (which, if you really need it, I can go dig out) of you chiding people on posting on inappropriate threads. We have evidence (cited above) of you moving on to a new post.

All I'm asking is that you be consistent one way or the other -- either you've left a lot of stuff here unrebutted and unchallenged, in which case, by "Silence equals consent" you accept it, or you accept that Stephen Law has the same rights you do when it comes to blogging.

You seem to be keenly interested in making Law appear more proficient and professional than he actually is.

I am interested in defending Law from your slanders -- and, indeed, accusing someone of professional incompetence without solid evidence is far more slanderous than anything I have *ever* done to you.

Ironically enough, while I'd vaguely heard of Law before starting to debate with you, it wasn't until you started attacking him that I went to see what all the ire was about. So thank you for introducing me to his work, which I much enjoy.

- I quoted Law making a false statement in which Law claimed that he addressed my question in his video assessment. That did NOT answer my question.

Can you comprehend the difference between offering a bogus response and actually answering a person's question?

Can you, Rick? Because your answers to people here frequently drop out large portions of their questions, or are non-responsive.

I'm just trying to hold you to a consistent standard as both commentator and blog owner.

Stephen Law felt what you were asking was answered there. You can argue it's an incomplete answer. You can argue it's a wrong answer. But that's not the same as saying "He never answered you."

Where is link to a comment or any video lecture that offers Law's opinion on the logic of the central argument of The God Delusion.

The video I saw was addressing the synopsis of Dawkins' argument -- and found flaws in in in re: Plantinga's possible counterargument. That you are unwilling or unable to see it is not Law's fault, but your own.

It's quite interesting that you do not consider your unsubstantiated lies and slander about me inappropriate, but asking a professional philosopher simple and polite questions about logic is considered "attacking" him.

Repeatedly pestering someone with your questions, which they feel they have answered, on unrelated threads, and then proclaiming them unprofessional and unproficient because they don't answer isn't being polite.

You object here to behavior you engage in there -- and though it is clearly desperately important for you to draw any distinction you can, it just isn't there. You followed him to an unrelated thread -- simple, objective fact. You object to people doing that on your blog -- simple, objective fact.

>I'd vaguely heard of Law before starting to debate with you

- That must be the reason you were so confident that Law demonstrably used logic in his own arguments, right? Yeah, right.

I saw your critique, went and read Law, returned, and responded. That you can't seem to comprehend that sequence of events is rather startling.

Especially since my "starting to debate with you" was well before the posts you're claiming to object to. I've been debating with you since at least May of last year, and your posts here bringing up Law are from September. Plenty of time for my statement to be completely true.

So, thank you; had I not started debating with you, I might not have dug as deeply into Law's work as I have, and I appreciate that.

Show a clear example of a quote and a link where Stephen Law uses a valid logical form and structure in one of his arguments

I will note that a critique of someone else's position is a logical argument. Therefore, using logic in arguing against another philosopher (such as Plantinga) qualifies as "using a valid logical form and structure."

(This is beside the point that I would have to go back and look at the (unlinked) comment to see if you are putting two appropriate quotes together, or if you are conflating things to try and disguise your error, something you have done in the past.)

>your answers to people here frequently drop out large portions of their questions, or are non-responsive.

- As I've stated several dozen times already, I feel no sense of obligation to entertain dialogue with slanderers who post repetitive false statements. The fact that I am making an exception today and engaging in a dialogue with you does not negate that fact.

>I'm just trying to hold you to a consistent standard as both commentator and blog owner.

- This is not your blog and you have no right to dictate my standards. Would you prefer that I never dialogue with you at all? Because if you want to be a legalist as a slanderer, that is what you will get here at this blog.

>Therefore, using logic in arguing against another philosopher (such as Plantinga) qualifies as "using a valid logical form and structure."

- That was not the context of the comment in which you called me a liar. Your comment followed my point that Law did not offer a demonstrable use of logic in his own arguments, as noted in quotes in previous comments in this thread.

It would be helpful for you, Imnotadrei to admit your mistake here in calling me a liar.

It would also be helpful for you to admit that Stephen Law made a false statement when he claimed that his video-taped critique answered my question as to whether Dawkins' argument offers any sense of logical consequence. Would you be willing to admit that fact? Here are documented comments:

To Stephen:

1. Do you agree with Craig that Dawkins' summary argument (located in the chapter that you find so "impressive") does not offer sound logical consequence?

>your answers to people here frequently drop out large portions of their questions, or are non-responsive.

- As I've stated several dozen times already, I feel no sense of obligation to entertain dialogue with slanderers who post repetitive false statements. The fact that I am making an exception today and engaging in a dialogue with you does not negate that fact.

And as you may have failed to notice, the examples I cited earlier in this thread, of things you presumably didn't agree with, even though you were silent on -- those came from a thread well before you decided I was a "slanderer" and reduced your interaction with me.

So you act as if you have no obligation to *anyone* to entertain dialogue. Which is fine. But to then turn around and claim that since Stephen Law doesn't entertain dialogue with you, he's admitting your points, is hypocritical.

- This is not your blog and you have no right to dictate my standards.

No, but I do have the right to call you on a double standard when you use one. Which is what you did on Law's blog, and what you do here not infrequently.

It would be helpful for you, Imnotadrei to admit your mistake here in calling me a liar.

Helpful to your conscience, perhaps, but I am not going to admit it, because it isn't true.

You have also demonstrated that admitting to mistakes is unwise, since doing so gets one labeled a "slanderer".

It is a well documented fact that the video-taped lecture does not in fact answer my question.

No; it is a fact that it does not answer it to your satisfaction. Law is not obliged to answer your questions to your satisfaction, just as you are not obliged to answer my questions to my satisfaction.

To sum up:

Would you prefer that I never dialogue with you at all? Because if you want to be a legalist as a slanderer, that is what you will get here at this blog.

And, by the standard you use at Law's blog, that will mean that you consent to the statements I make, because you don't answer them.

(Also, Rick; you're not in a position to call anyone else "legalist" -- considering the lengths of hairsplitting and detail-parsing you're willing to go to to try and defend your positions, e.g. "Arizona's law is unconstitutional because it does not exactly specify how loud is too loud.")

All I'm trying to get you to do, Rick, is be consistent in how you behave -- if you've decided I'm an uncivilized blog abuser, then by the same standards you apply to me, so are you, in Law's blog. And I recall there being some discussion about "Do unto others....", no? ;)